UDWiki:Administration/Vandal Banning/Archive1

This page is for the reporting of vandalism within the Urban Dead wiki, as defined by vandalism policy. On this wiki, the punishment for Vandalism is temporary banning, but due to security concerns, the ability to mete out this punishment is restricted to System Operators. As such, regular users will need to lodge a report for a Vandal to be banned from the wiki. For consistency and accountability, System Operators are requested to note on this board their actions in dealing with Vandals.

Guidelines for Vandalism Reporting

In dealing with Vandalism, time is often of the essence. As such, we ask that all users include the following information in a Vandalism report:

• A link to the pages in question.

Preferably bolded for visibility. If the Vandalism is occurring over a sufficiently large number of pages, instead include a time range of the vandalism attempt, or alternatively, a link to the first vandalised page. This allows us to quickly find the damage so we can quickly assess the situation.

• The user name of the Vandal.

This allows us to more easily identify the culprit, and to check details.

• A signed datestamp.

For accountability purposes, we ask that you record in your request your user name and the time you lodged the report.

• Please report at the top.

There's conflict with where to post and a lot of the reports are missed. If it's placed at the top of the page it's probably going to be seen and dealt with.

If you see Vandalism in progress, don't wait for System Operators to deal with it, as there may be no System Operator online at the time. Lodge the report, then start reverting pages back to their original form. This can be done by going to the "History" tab at the top of the page, and finding the last edit before the Vandal's attack. When a System Operator is available, they'll assess the situation, and if the report is legitimate, we will take steps to either warn the vandal, or ban them if they are on their second warning.

If the page is long, you can add new reports by editing the top report and placing your new report above its header in the edit screen.

Before Submitting a Report

• This page, Vandal Banning, deals with bad-faith breaches of official policy.
• Interpersonal complaints are better sorted out at UDWiki:Administration/Arbitration.
• As much as is practical, assume good faith and try to iron out problems with other users one to one, only using this page as a last resort.
• Avoid submitting reports which are petty.

Vandalism Report Space

Administration Notice Talk with the user before reporting or accusing someone of vandalism for small edits. In most cases it's simply a case of a new user that doesn't know how this wiki works. Sometimes assuming good faith and speaking with others can avoid a lot of drama, and can even help newbies feel part of this community. Administration Notice If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or directly involved in the case, the administration asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment. Administration Notice Warned users can remove one entry of their warning history every one month and 250 edits after their last warning. Remember to ask a sysop to remove them in due time. You are as responsible for keeping track of your history as the sysops are; In case of a sysop wrongly punishing you due to an outdated history, he might not be punished for his actions.

May 2009

User:Suicidalangel

Suicidalangel (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

Editing a user's signature without reason and intentionally going against the established procedure as prescribed by policy. This case concerns only the edit to my sig page and not the subsequent contact.

The policy in question is very clear. My signature does not break any of the dictated disallowed criteria, and therefore does not break the signature policy. There is nothing destructive in my signature that required immediate action, SA's action is therefore instant vandalism. Nubis, Conn and Cheese will be through shortly to rule not vandalism shortly and save SA's ass as they have below, but every reasonable user knows that if they committed the same act it'd be vandalism. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 16:24, 31 May 2009 (BST)

lrn2bereadingplzn00b. Kthx. -- Cheese 16:33, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Not vandalism - the signature ("I") was deliberately intended to go against the spirit of our sig policy, which is basically to ensure that signatures make it easy to identify the poster, and arn't page breaking/malicious. Just because it is done in a way that can be wiki-lawyered to not break the word of the policy, doesn't mean it isn't something done in bad faith. It's entirely reasonable to revert something like this, and warn that a vandalism case may be brought if it's repeated -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 02:56 1 June 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - While I am considering the facts on the misconduct case, I don't believe this case to be vandalism because SA was simply modifying what he, and I also, deem to be a bad-faith signature edit. The signature was not constructive in identifying the poster in any way, and was most probably made for the purpose of confusing members of the community. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 12:19, 1 June 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism because Iscariot is right.</sarcasm> Bad faith and you know it. and SA giving you a soft warning is well within his authority. If you want a real one I'm sure somebody wouldn't mind putting it up for consideration here. And by the way...the community consensus is: One should be able to ID who made a post by looking at the signature. Once again I urge a ban on all "custom" sigs (but know that will never happen) Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 00:18, 2 June 2009 (BST)

User:GSwarthout

GSwarthout (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	{{{1}}}
Action taken	{{{2}}}

Just a guess, but his edits to Bowring Blackwatch, namely putting members of the leadership on the KOS list, I'm guessing he shouldn't be editing that. Third contribution is NPOV on a community page. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 06:59, 29 May 2009 (BST)

I tried something a little unorthodox and searched all profiles mentioned (plus this user) through the Profile DB database. All UD profiles being labeled as PKers do in fact belong to Bowring Blackwatch, whilst the UD character called GSwarthout is with Extinction. Because of this flimsy background check, I've only reverted the edits, so until I get a confirmation from the last main contributor on the Blackwatch page, I won't be ruling yet. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:14, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Any other s'op can jump in and rule though. I just have work now, is all. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:15, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Based off of the evidence brought and searched for, I'm ruling vandalism until notification from group. Sure, assume good faith and all, but this seems more like a petty wiki assault by one of the groups enemy.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 14:59, 30 May 2009 (BST)

User:An Odd Red Cup

An Odd Red Cup (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

He's editing another groups page, again -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:43 28 May 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - To be honest, I think all this guy needs now is someone to tell him exactly what he is doing wrong. He's just trying to voice his opinion and doesn't understand that the talk page is specifically used for that. It's nothing that couldn't have been said on the Black Delta talk page, which I assume is where he would have gone if he knew the rules of group page ownership, etc. Similarly, I've given him a bit of direction onto his talk page, so I'm willing to see if anything changes. I welcome any s'ops who think otherwise to pipe up though. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 10:23, 28 May 2009 (BST)

User:Suicidalangel

Suicidalangel (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Repeated striking of an justified vote, the talk page and history demonstrates the history of this. The voting rules and basic good faith says you should justify your vote. Normal users have been escalated numerous times in the past for breaching the voting rules, let's see if it really is one rule for sysops and one for everyone else shall we?

Also, someone may want to do a check on the IP for User:Robertderks so that any alt can be linked on Vandal Data should they commit a vandalism offence in the future, I find it hard to believe a new user would come to this wiki and cycle the most contentious suggestion currently in the system perfectly on the first attempt. It'll be an alt of a current user, but we'll see if they've used a proxy or not. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:29, 28 May 2009 (BST)

Huh. Why am I not surprised that Iscariot files the vandalism case after it's been cycled, but not when he originally says he will. Meh. But this Robertderks guy? Not me. If it's another regular user I'm wondering why they didn't just do it with their main, it's not like they'd have been escalated for it.

Also, it's repeated unstriking of an unjustified vote if you're using the diff as evidence. Learn basic fucking English, amirite? Hurry up and rule, the suggestions talk page shows my arguments as well as everyone elses. Also, if this is ruled vandalism, I'm starting a jihad against all these shittily justified votes, as they're worse than votes that lack a justification altogether.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 02:39, 28 May 2009 (BST)

You unstruck it after the deadline, votes should not be altered after that. Otherwise I could have removed my suggestion from voting, but Boxy ruled I couldn't in a vandalism case. The voting rules template is clear, unjustified votes are invalid and may be struck by any user. You are aware of the process to change this and still have not chosen to begin to alter these rules, this is your demonstration of bad faith, demanding different treatment for yourself compared to that of every other user in history. As for when I posted this case, I was not aware there was a statute of limitations on bad faith? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 02:48, 28 May 2009 (BST)

Actually on my screen when I look at the suggestion I see this: Image:Suggtime.JPG

And this shows when I unstruck it at about 15:00.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 03:04, 28 May 2009 (BST)

If you care to check the difference I show above, you unstruck the vote at 19:01 on 27/05/09, the deadline was 18:45 on 27/05/09. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:10, 28 May 2009 (BST)

Image:Suggtime2.JPG. It shows 15:01 for me.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 03:15, 28 May 2009 (BST)

Last time I checked, such things in the NewSug template went off server time. Server time is based on the real world where culture, history and UD come from. Now as both of our images say 18:45, it's fair to say that 18:45 was the time in GMT that the suggestion was posted. Now of the two of us, who has identical server and local time? Me or you? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 03:31, 28 May 2009 (BST)

Actually I'm pretty sure neither of you have local time identical to server time, since server time is GMT and doesn't do daylight saving time (the timestamps do, though). But anyway, the easiest solution is to completely disregard the timestamp on the page and look at the damn history where the two edits are in the same timezone regardless of your preferences. And what do you know, SA's edit was made over one hour after voting should've ended. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 08:06, 28 May 2009 (BST)

Wandalism - the bad faith comes in at the leaving the stricken vote for 10 days (after an revert war) and then unstriking it just as voting is about to end (actually already had), and the page protected -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 06:54 28 May 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism My belief on the necessity of validating ones votes is on record but that is an issue entirely separate. The edit did not change the outcome nor would it have been a valid change anyway since the voting had ended. No Harm, No Foul Not Vandalism for the edit in question. Now if the self appointed lord and master of suggestions wants to make a different case on a different ground, I might consider it. Otherwise its just an edit war... Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 07:08, 28 May 2009 (BST)

Oh, and the IP for User:Robertderks comes back as a unique IP (insofar as it has never been used by another user) and is in a range of IPs provided by an internet service. (and by the way folks that's how you reveal checkuser information without violating privacy)Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 07:18, 28 May 2009 (BST)

How can one rule not vandalism on a case just because the action didn't have any repercussions regarding the suggestion at hand? This goes beyond the mere outcome of the suggestion; it is about discussing a breach of guidelines, and a foul attempt at sneaking the edit through the system at (or possibly after) the end of the voting period. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:38, 28 May 2009 (BST)

Because I beleive that vandalism MUST break both "faith" and "function" to be vandalism. And I also beleive not following guidelines is not an intrinsic act of bad faith. Finally complaining about "sneaking" an edit that absolutely no impact on the final outcome seems as petty and trite as bringing up someone on vandalism charges for changing a period to a question mark on a locked page. Against the guidelines, yes, necessary to bring vandalism or misconduct? hell no. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 16:24, 28 May 2009 (BST)

I will lay claim to editing after the voting period, but not purposefully. I looked at the suggestion page itself for the times as you can tell by my screens, and it misled me. I hadn't thought to even check the history, so on that grounds, me trying to unstrike my vote, which would have been completely valid if not for time issues, is now invalid and will promptly be re-struck.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 12:36, 28 May 2009 (BST)

Vandalism - As Boxy. Waiting until the end of the period to get the 'last word' before protecting it yourself crossed the line, and the fact you accidentally did it after the closing period is a fitting result of the risk you took by doing so. Especially for something that would never have happened if you had chosen to avoid Iscariot's games in the first place. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:01, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Yes, because everyone should be on the wiki 24/7 and there should be no gaps in when they post. Using the time difference as a justification is retarded. ANd please, let's give Iscariot everything he wants because he has proven that he is a clear and reasonable contributor. --– Nubis ^NWO 15:39, 29 May 2009 (BST)

SA, like a couple of other users, is on nearly 24/7. And I don't care about Iscariot's involvement, any more than I am dissatisfied with SA persistence against him in this case. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 16:35, 29 May 2009 (BST)

It's not that I was looking for a fight. If you'll look through some previous suggestions, I've left votes unjustified before. Iscariot just decided that day would be fun to be a hair splitter. Though I still accept my punishment, when decided.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 13:27, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism Assuming good faith. --– Nubis ^NWO 15:36, 29 May 2009 (BST)

Closure please. Do I get a warning or not?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 13:28, 30 May 2009 (BST)

its a 2-2 split DDR and Boxy for vandalism, Nubis and myself for not. soon as a 5th sysop rules Im sure you'll get it. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 21:50, 30 May 2009 (BST)

That was more of a call to the less drama-associated ops. Seriously guys, just rule. No one will kill you if you do, nor will I be mad. Please rule soon? I hate waiting on my own cases...:/ --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 03:51, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Vandalism SA made edits to the wiki every day during the 10 day period between the beginning of this dispute and the time the suggestion ended. This smacks of final wordishness. Plus he's admitted he edited the voting after it had closed. I would encourage SA to now start his jihad against all these shittily justified votes, as they're worse than votes that lack a justification altogether. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 16:08, 31 May 2009 (BST)

Vandalism - As Ross, DDR and Boxy. It sucks but we follow the rules. Even if they are a bit crap. -- Cheese 16:20, 31 May 2009 (BST)

User:Gummy Bear

Gummy_Bear (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Perma

Spam attack, am entirely sure it's Bada Bing/Foxtrot back again.

I've countered his 321agemo picture, by replacing it.--Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 21:40, 27 May 2009 (BST)

This guy seems to have a bit much free time. =/ Round 4? -- Cheese 21:47, 27 May 2009 (BST)

Coming soon...--Thadeous Oakley, Europeans, don't forget to VOTE! 22:29, 27 May 2009 (BST)

Gummy bear:The Return of teh SPAM!--Orange Talk 22:34, 27 May 2009 (BST)

Just to confirm, Perma... SA got him. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 05:11, 28 May 2009 (BST)

User:Bada Bing

Bada Bing (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Perma

Check his contribs. Massive vandal spree. --  RoosterDragon  21:19, 27 May 2009 (BST)

Permabanned, almost definitely a Foxtrot alt, probably a proxy. Pages deleted, diffs reverted. Good work Team Angel! :D --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:25, 27 May 2009 (BST)

You might want to jump on his IP, like, right now. --  RoosterDragon  21:31, 27 May 2009 (BST)

Especially considering he's probably back under the new pseudonym of User:Gummy Bear --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 21:33, 27 May 2009 (BST)

I've already banned the ips and account creation from it. He's proxying it up. Also, no need to upload images over the vandal ones. It's just easier if you leave them.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 21:40, 27 May 2009 (BST)

Oh, OK. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 21:41, 27 May 2009 (BST)

User:Foxtrot

Foxtrot (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permabanned

Spamming. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 21:37, 25 May 2009 (BST)

A Helpful Little Gnome Is A Fag and I have all the time in the world, bitch, both created by him. --Pestolence^(talk) 21:44, 25 May 2009 (BST)

Massive vandalism and spamming spree by looking at his contributions. He is still doing this as I type, just hand him a perma already.--Thadeous Oakley, Europeans, don't forget to VOTE! 21:48, 25 May 2009 (BST)

Ofcourse, he is claiming the use of proxies now.--Thadeous Oakley, Europeans, don't forget to VOTE! 21:49, 25 May 2009 (BST)

Not to mention his vandalism to this page. [[1]] [[2]] [[3]]. If his other edits weren't enough to get him warned/banned, these surely put him over the top. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 21:51, 25 May 2009 (BST)

The entire recentchanges page is full of it now. Just give him a permanent perma ban. --Thadeous Oakley, Europeans, don't forget to VOTE! 21:52, 25 May 2009 (BST)

OK, he seems to do it as fast as we can clean it up, so perhaps just ban him now and clean up the mess later? --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 22:04, 25 May 2009 (BST)

I can't, sorry no sysops. --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 22:04, 25 May 2009 (BST)

We only wait for a sysops, or until he stops.--Thadeous Oakley, Europeans, don't forget to VOTE! 22:05, 25 May 2009 (BST)

Well, I just edited the vandal template. I think him getting perma-banned is a sure thing now. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 22:16, 25 May 2009 (BST)

Spambit banished. Thanks for cleaning this all up. Linkthewindow  Talk  22:15, 25 May 2009 (BST)

Not a problem. Check the Speedy Del. que for a list of all the pages he made. Me and MG have been updating it. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 22:17, 25 May 2009 (BST)

Already done :D Linkthewindow  Talk  22:19, 25 May 2009 (BST)

The XMan

The XMan (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Edited the SARG page in bad faith.

And, yes, this is months old, and mustn't have been spotted at the time. Shame on you, RC lurkers :P. Linkthewindow  Talk  04:10, 17 May 2009 (BST)

Warned -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:45 17 May 2009 (BST)

User:An Odd Red Cup

An Odd Red Cup (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

Created this. Connected with the case two below this. --Pestolence^(talk) 01:58, 16 May 2009 (BST)

It actually looks like he made his own group to legitimately force the same message as his last vandalism edit... D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 03:33, 16 May 2009 (BST)

Shameless troll material, but not vandalism. It's more a thing for arbies. Linkthewindow  Talk  03:49, 16 May 2009 (BST)

One thing that needs to be changed is the header of the page. The user needs to specify clearly that the group isn't actually Black Delta. It's a guideline somewhere in this place. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 04:03, 16 May 2009 (BST)

User:Happykook

Happykook (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	24 hour ban

Impersonation. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 07:41, 14 May 2009 (BST)

24 Hour Ban. -- Cheese 07:52, 14 May 2009 (BST)

User:An Odd Red Cup

An Odd Red Cup (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Vandalism --  AHLGTG THE END IS NIGH! 19:07, 13 May 2009 (BST)

BLACK DELTA GROUP PAGE

Somone keeps fucking with our group page, this is jhorror and i lost my fucking password (Jock Horror) and now somone is fucking with our page and we dont know who it is.... --Jhorror 19:07, 13 May 2009 (BST)

Vandalism - Warned. -- Cheese 19:28, 13 May 2009 (BST)

Turkmenbashi

Turkmenbashi (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

Removing most groups from the Dulston listing. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:44, 13 May 2009 (BST)

A job for arbies, if it continues. Not vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 03:42 14 May 2009 (BST)

User:Dante Sterling

Dante Sterling (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

Editing another user's page. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 10:31, 13 May 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - Simple newbie mistake. Again, I ask you to talk to the user before bringing stuff like that here. I also notice that you haven't bothered to revert the "vandalism". Either do it properly or not at all. Thank you. -- Cheese 12:09, 13 May 2009 (BST)

User:Omega314

Omega314 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Ban circumvention
Action taken	Permban

It would appear that someone is trying to circumvent their wiki ban. Could it be User:Omega123? Lets see. Call me paranoid but when all his edits are to User:Omega123 is seems a good bet. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 14:56, 9 May 2009 (BST)

Permban - IPs match -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 15:21 9 May 2009 (BST)

User:Omega123

Omega123 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permabanned

Seems to be involved with the incident below. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 22:07, 7 May 2009 (BST)

Checkuser doesn't show them up as alts, but still permabanned under the three-edit rule. Linkthewindow  Talk  22:10, 7 May 2009 (BST)

User:Dragoneternal

Dragoneternal (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permabanned

Constantly spamming both User:Sister Rita and M.E.R.C.Y. with inane rubbish and text blanking. Nothing of any use. I aked him to stop yesterbay. No helpful contributions. Perma anyone? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 18:07, 7 May 2009 (BST)

And is probably using User:Omega123 as an alternative account. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 19:41, 7 May 2009 (BST)

Wow, he went on a spree. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and maybe more that I missed. I think it's hammer time. --Pestolence^(talk) 21:06, 7 May 2009 (BST)

Good work pest. Keep this up and you could be a sysop. Talking of which, anyone? Permaban request? Hello? --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 21:15, 7 May 2009 (BST)

Banhammered. Linkthewindow  Talk  21:59, 7 May 2009 (BST)

User:Imthatguy

Imthatguy (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

For these edits to another user's subpage. --Pestolence^(talk) 02:59, 6 May 2009 (BST)

Vandalism - warned. He's on his last warning now. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:47, 6 May 2009 (BST)

{{Drama}}sums up my stand-point --Imthatguy 19:04, 7 May 2009 (BST)

Um, no, sorry. This isn't even close to drama. --Pestolence^(talk) 20:38, 7 May 2009 (BST)

User:Happykook

Happykook (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Impersonation. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 20:28, 5 May 2009 (BST)

Vandalism. Warned. I notice you haven't bothered to revert it. Would you like chips with that? -- Cheese 21:04, 5 May 2009 (BST)

Woah, do they actually say would you like chips with that in crazy ol' Scotlan'? You guys need to americanise/ize...--xoxo 04:53, 7 May 2009 (BST)

User:DTangent

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None required

DTangent (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

For this edit to someone's signed comment on a suburb page. --Haliman - Talk 20:52, 4 May 2009 (BST)

You do realise that he puts his own signature on it, so he's not impersonating anyone at all?

The most you could try here is improper removal of a comment from a suburb page, but first you'd have to show that the original post was factual and his comment is not factual and/or POV. That's arbitration to you. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 21:23, 4 May 2009 (BST)

He has just undone your undone edit to his edit. I have now undone his edit again. Still following? On the point: He basically disagrees with what Leon wrote, however his comment's he places are pure griefing. Anyway I am fairly active tonight so I will simply keep undoing his edits until a sysops steps in.--Thadeous Oakley 21:55, 4 May 2009 (BST)

Oh yeah, just realized some people have an obsession with moving everything here to the talk page. I am actually involved here, so remove my comments and I will just put them back.--Thadeous Oakley 22:03, 4 May 2009 (BST)

Alright, thanks Thad. --Haliman - Talk 22:21, 4 May 2009 (BST)

Not vandalism - take it to arbies -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:38 4 May 2009 (BST)

However his second contribution to the page (which you didn't link to) is getting very close. Any more insults on the page will be a warning -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 22:42 4 May 2009 (BST)

User:DanceDanceRevolution

Verdict	Ban request
Action taken	5 days

DanceDanceRevolution (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

I am requesting a 5 day ban. I need a small amount of time to focus on some issues. I'll be back trying my hardest soon enough. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 11:41, 4 May 2009 (BST)

Done. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:45, 4 May 2009 (BST)

WTF?????? --Imthatguy 20:21, 4 May 2009 (BST)

Happens quite often.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 22:02, 4 May 2009 (BST)

Yeah, usually when people need to break their wiki addiction for a few days and do stuff in real life. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:37, 5 May 2009 (BST)

Hey! I can quit anytime I want! D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:53, 9 May 2009 (BST)

lol@u--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 12:21, 9 May 2009 (BST)

User:Thescaryman

Thescaryman (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

For these edits to the Samhain Slaughter page: http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Samhain_Slaughter&diff=prev&oldid=1443747 http://wiki.urbandead.com/index.php?title=Samhain_Slaughter&diff=prev&oldid=1443746

Note that Thescaryman styles himself as quite the linguist and author; I was impressed by his subtle prose and cunning wordplay.

Also, I rather hope I did this in the proper format. I would be most distressed if this suddenly broke the page or is in the worng section.

--DT^PK 04:54, 2 May 2009 (BST)

Vandalism - warned. Linkthewindow  Talk  05:14, 2 May 2009 (BST)

April 2009

User:Pestolence

Pestolence (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

For making this page. A definite crit 2 which serves absolutely no purpose, as admitted by the creator. We don't need spam like this on the wiki. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:08, 29 April 2009 (BST)

Also this page. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 08:24, 29 April 2009 (BST)

Not vandalism - so far, but if it continues I'd consider it spamming -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 09:41 29 April 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - As Boxy. Linkthewindow  Talk  22:40, 29 April 2009 (BST)

I just noticed this case, and I'd like to apologize for this. It won't happen again. --Pestolence^(talk) 23:03, 29 April 2009 (BST)

User:Roorgh

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	Warning retracted

Roorgh (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Posting personal information about another user on the wiki. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 20:28, 28 April 2009 (BST)

Not voting since I'm involved, but that's so wrong it's laughable. Linkthewindow  Talk  22:34, 28 April 2009 (BST)

Vandalism - The Box man got him with a warning. -- Cheese 23:16, 28 April 2009 (BST)

If Linkthewindow has taken offence at what I've written (being that he's the 'victim' of this) then I'll take whatever punishment he sees fit. What I wrote though was clearly nonsense, with the only factual part being the format of the SSN and that Linkedthewindow likes UrbanDead. I couldn't have made it look any more wrong if I'd looked at Linkedthewindow's profile beforehand (which I didn't think of doing). --Roorgh 23:31, 28 April 2009 (BST)

Sorry, my internet died. Warning retracted. But it wasn't obvious, in fact I thought you were probably referring to the other person you were arguing with. Anyway, don't threaten to reveal R/L details, don't even pretend to reveal them -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 00:47 29 April 2009 (BST)

User:Ian Bane

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warning

Ian Bane (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Warned for editing another users user page. Still one edit off a perma. -- Cheese 21:22, 20 April 2009 (BST)

User:Venomclaw

Venomclaw (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None required

Not sure if I got this request right, but Venomclaw edited Kinch Heights Radio Freq (and following edits) and News, edited Radio Freq list only (it seems) because his zombie group is teh rocks. I'm new and not sure if this is vandalism, but I think something should be done here - this is not the way to edit stuff. btw, i'm not associated to Kinch Heights in any way, it just stroke my mind when i posted news for NecroWatch. If this is the wrong way to report this, please talk to me how to do it the right way. Thanks. -- -Alka Selzer- ^{[ Talk - Map - Stuff ]}  22:54, 17 April 2009 (BST)

Just so the sysops know, I talked to him about the correct procedures before this case was put up and has since not made any questionable edits. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 02:04, 18 April 2009 (BST)

Apparently he belongs to a survivor group, and I think the talk that DDR had with him is enough to give him an idea of what to do. Seems like newbish mistakes, so Not Vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 07:08 18 April 2009 (BST)

User:NiggerCheese

NiggerCheese (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permabanned

Epic Vandal spree. Permaban -- Cheese 15:42, 17 April 2009 (BST)

[4], [5], [6], [7], [8], [9], [10], and the mother of all server-screwups. Seriously, check that last one >=[ D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 15:44, 17 April 2009 (BST)

User:Rottingwurms

Rottingwurms (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Spamming a suburb page. --Johnny Bass 17:31, 13 April 2009 (BST)

Warned. -- Cheese 17:57, 13 April 2009 (BST)

User:Jimcrazyguy

Jimcrazyguy (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Permaban

Replacing SA' page and Morbious's page with inane text. I blocked him for three minutes so he wouldn't do anything while I cleaned up the damage. Checkusering him now. Linkthewindow  Talk  02:05, 12 April 2009 (BST)

Blanked two pages since then. Permabanned as a pure vandal alt. Linkthewindow  Talk  02:10, 12 April 2009 (BST)

This too, just before I banhammered him. Linkthewindow  Talk  02:14, 12 April 2009 (BST)

He's also been editing under the same IP as Sockem. Main warned. Linkthewindow  Talk  02:10, 12 April 2009 (BST)

I should really check vandal data before I warn these guys. He qualifies for a week ban. Linkthewindow  Talk  02:26, 12 April 2009 (BST)

I was going to change one of your duped links to this edit but I'm not feeling so bold tonight, so I've added it here. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 09:10, 12 April 2009 (BST)

User:SparklyBones

SparklyBones (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warning

This. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 01:19, 8 April 2009 (BST)

Stuff reverted. --•▬ ▬••▬ • •••• •▬ ▬•▬• ▬•▬ ^{#nerftemplatedsigs} 01:20, 8 April 2009 (BST)

Vandalism, I'm holding off on a punishment to see if he's stupid enough to keep it up though.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:29, 8 April 2009 (BST)

Nothing else since this report, so just a warning.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 18:44, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Don't forget to update the Verdict template, Angel. I'll do it for you this time. --Blake Firedancer ^{T E RNL? P.I.S.I.T.} 12:36, 10 April 2009 (BST)

SA didn't actually warn him yet. Anyway, warned now. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:33, 10 April 2009 (BST)

My power went out as I was saving the warning, and it slipped my mind. Also, Blake, don't just complain about me. A lot of us don't do it.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 23:42, 10 April 2009 (BST)

User:Charlotte Billingam & User:Kasei & User:Boxer & User:Lolol

Charlotte Billingam (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	All Vandalism
Action taken	3 warnings with a permaban for Lolol

Kasei (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Boxer (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Lolol (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Starting at Boxer, he added the PH Extermination banner to the PH page, here, added the PH themselves to the list of people supporting the PH Extermination, here, they're also the only two edits by that account.

Kasei vandalised the PH page here, here and here to change it to STARS' favour.

Charlotte Billingam blanked half the PH page and replaced it with "We like it up the ass :) Because we're gay PKers hooray!", here and then removed the rest of the page here. Also, on an unrelated page, she vandalised the page even further after Lolol had finished by adding this

Finally, Lolol vandalised the Blue Aegis Group page, here, here, here and here.--Ryzak Black 17:50, 7 April 2009 (BST)

IP check turns up nothing so they get one escalation each. Vandalism -- Cheese 18:50, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Lolol meets the 3 crap edits and you're out rule so he's banned and Boxer is one away from that. I'll keep an eye on it. -- Cheese 18:59, 7 April 2009 (BST)

User:Sgt Raiden

Sgt Raiden (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

Blanking a community page. I reverted the vandalism and waited to see if he was attempting to add a news item and pressed a button in error, no report has been forthcoming.

It's not like I called this an age ago or anything.... -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:22, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Vandalism Somebody warn him. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 01:32, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Vandalism and warned. --ZsL 04:53, 7 April 2009 (BST)

User:Iscariot

Iscariot (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None required

For consistently breaching the guidelines for submitting vandal reports as shown here. The user's most recent report was in breach of at least 3 of these: 1) He made no attempt to assume good faith and contact me on my talk page in an effort to iron out the problem. 2) He has an ongoing personal dispute against me and as a result this belongs on Arbitration rather than here on Vandal Banning. 3) The report is rather petty in nature as the user could just simply reverted the edit in question and provided a coherent argument rather than dragging it to VB. And possibly 4) To my knowledge my edit was in no way a bad-faith and I am pretty sure there was precedent a while back for Keep votes to be taken as justified purely for being Keep votes. However I see that Axe Hack has restored the strike so I am willing to admit that I was wrong in this instance and will take this on board for future cases of this nature.

This user has repeatedly ignored these guidelines despite numerous requests from the administration team, showing that he believes himself above the rules that most other users follow quite happily. Being a dick may not be against the rules but filling admin pages with petty reports purely to advance his personal agendas is well within the realms of bad faith.

I would post on the user's talk page to try and sort this out with him, however due to his continued hostility towards administration team members it would more than likely be deleted and apparently a misconduct case would be brought against me. Either way, I believe Iscariot's edits to this page are disruptive and create drama where none need occur. -- Cheese 00:15, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Quoting Cheese on a below case: "There is no policy making that box law". -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 00:19, 7 April 2009 (BST)

I see you aren't reading again. I was referring in that case to the box containing the request to keep extraneous chatter to the talk page. In this case I refer to the actual guidelines for submitting a report. That is an entirely different kettle of fish. A kettle of fish that you keep seeming to forget about. -- Cheese 00:21, 7 April 2009 (BST)

There's no differences between those boxes, both are attempts to force into precedent something that has never been voted into policy by this community. If you believe that one is worthless, then all must be worthless. So either you vote vandalism on the below case or you already knew this case had no merit and you are bringing it in hope I get banned.

Also the irony, did you attempt to contact me on my talk page? Isn't this petty? And no, given your past continued reverts to pages involving me it was not a case of simply re-striking the vote as you have demonstrated previously that such leads to edit wars where you are involved. I was attempting to resolve the issue without needless drama, perhaps you have neglected to assume good faith? -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 01:06, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Vandalism Continuous issues with the sysops as they try to do their jobs as best they can...Jeebus man, Get over it. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 01:30, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Not vandalism. Your edit may not have been bad faith, nor really vandalism in it self, but those guidelines are rarely followed. Rarely. Sonny used to get away with getting users actually banned without having to do anything but be himself and post here. What would you have gotten, at most a warning? If you want Iscariot to follow it, or anyone for that matter, make sure it's enforced consistently.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:32, 7 April 2009 (BST)

(another 1-1 can we get some closure here?) Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 23:03, 8 April 2009 (BST))

Not vandalism -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:18 9 April 2009 (BST)

User:Krazy Monkey

Krazy Monkey (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None required

Unstriking an unjustified vote. Claims in his edit summary "Unstriking, Keep votes have been shown to be justification in themselves", this is patently untrue as evidenced by the voting rules template. All votes require justification, although alternative voting standards have been discussed, nothing has reached a consensus. Accordingly this is an attempt to subvert the established process and prop up a suggestion by disregarding the community consensus about voting. -- . . <== DDR Approved Editor 23:33, 6 April 2009 (BST)

You really are a pretentious wanker. -- Cheese 23:53, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Iscariot has a point this time, either all votes should be justified, or none by the current guidelines. I'm thinking that if you don't pull something like this again we can just let this go with a warning, preferably soft. It's really not fair to let keep voters get away with not justifying their votes but not kill or spam voters. Are you agreeable as tho shit outcome Mr. Cheese?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:22, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism. I disagree on the justification guideline, a keep vote is a vote justified in its own merits. there is no need to vote keep:I like this. when Keep will do. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 01:25, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Then there is no need to have to justify a kill vote. Same idea, different outcome.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:27, 7 April 2009 (BST)

I disagree. A Kill is going to have a reason behind it and if that reason can be handled in a latter revision then it should be discussed whereas a keep indicates an acceptance as is. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 01:36, 7 April 2009 (BST)

A Keep would have to have a reason behind it too! Dear lord that I don't believe in, please tell me why there can be a straight acceptance when voting keep, but no straight nonacceptance when voting kill? There is no difference between just liking something and just hating something. Sure, you can ask for a reason why that person hates it, but you could also do the same for them liking it too!--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:42, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Perhaps this is a regional/national perception difference. I understand where you are comming from, but I find there to be an inherent difference between a like and a dislike of something. In my area if one looks at a piece of Art (lets say a Pollack) And the observer likes it, its considered good enough that the observer likes it, however if the opposite is true and the observer doesn't care for the work they are expected to critique the work (i.e. explain why they don't like it.) I Understand that you seem to be more of the Movie Critic line...(I liked for the action et al) I simply disagree. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 01:56, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Not so much as a regional thing just opinions. I think that if someone who doesn't like it should have to justify that dislike, then someone who likes it should have to too considering that their justification would be just about the same length as a kill voters "I don't like it", at the least. I just really don't think it's fair that one day I can vote keep with a smiley face and then a few weeks later vote kill with a frowney face and then have the kill vote struck out because of lack of justification. Or with any kinds of votes. Justification should be a strongly asked for thing for the author, not a requirement. There's enough people here who would give their justification without being forced to that those of us who don't want to can be fine.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 14:48, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Actually Iscariot is right. We've hashed this issue out in the past, keep votes need justification too. I mean most everything he says there is so wrong but the basic premise is right, the striking is 100% justified and claiming anything else is pushing rewriting the accepted status quo because you haven't taken the time to look into it. --Karek^maps?! 03:19, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Betcha that was a hard one to say right? :) --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 03:30, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Not really. I just didn't read it all beyond the basic points. The edit came from skimming too much of it and seeing normal over reaction. --Karek^maps?! 03:38, 9 April 2009 (BST)

So, as this hasn't been closed, Cheese, don't be unstriking unjustified Keep votes unless you do the same for spam and kill. Not Vandalism and Karek's statement sums it up best.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 18:47, 9 April 2009 (BST)

User:MisterGame

MisterGame (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warned

I am hearby creating a petty case against myself. The empty beer bottle told me so. AnD BeCauSe iTs a SilEnt pROtest agaiNts bORedom.--Thadeous Oakley 20:35, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Spamming up admin pages Vandalism Cheese ^{WTF!RandomSysOp?} - Vandalism struck, actually posted by User:MisterGame -- Cheese 20:45, 6 April 2009 (BST)

You forget impersonation. --Thadeous Oakley 20:35, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Self admitting right there >.> Cheese ^{WTF!RandomSysOp?} - Vandalism struck, actually posted by User:MisterGame -- Cheese 20:45, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Irony.--Thadeous Oakley 20:37, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Blatant Vandalism. Also impersonated a sysop by ruling on this page combined with regular impersonation by pretending to be me. I think it's a 2nd warning because he's due a de-escalation but I gave him a temp ban of 20 minutes to give me a chance to fix the page up without him popping in and messing it up. -- Cheese 20:45, 6 April 2009 (BST)

In actual fact he's very lucky as he's back to a single warning now. Warned -- Cheese 20:57, 6 April 2009 (BST)

User:Cyberbob240

Cyberbob240 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

Creating petty cases to harass users he has a history of constant disagreements with.--xoxo 14:30, 6 April 2009 (BST)

llllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllloooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooollllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllllll Cyberbob 14:35, 6 April 2009 (BST)

good job fagmeister you seem to have missed the part where I gave both those chucklefucks their due warning on their talk pages before bringing it to A/VB Cyberbob 14:36, 6 April 2009 (BST)

First the guideline suggests "discussing the edit" and second, your warning means squat as you were wrong to remove the comments in the first place.--Honestmistake 14:43, 6 April 2009 (BST)

I don't remember any really conflicting history between Bob and Mid. :/ --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:18, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Oh yeah, neither. Sorry my mistake. And i can't think of any ill feelings between bob and honest either! Sorry for wasting your time!! --xoxo 01:30, 7 April 2009 (BST)

No, really, if there has been any conflict between Mid and Bob, then please tell me as I missed it. No need for sass mister, as I didn't rule or anything. I know there is animosity between Honest and Bob, I just don't remember any between Mid and him. Is there?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:39, 7 April 2009 (BST)

thanks for edit conflicting me ;

I was going to suggest looking at any edit I made to any admin page in the last month or so, you will almost always find Bob making an insulting remark aimed at me. Before he jumps in here i will freely admit to responding to most of them, what can I say in my defense... he is an effective troll!--Honestmistake 01:35, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Interesting that Suicidal would actually consider this being vandalism when I tried to not have to bring Honest and Midianian to A/VB by warning them on their talk pages that if they did it again I would report them. Obviously my interpretation of the box was wrong (I must have missed the memo on that one as no sysop has ever had a problem with me moving comments to the talk page) but to call the cases "petty" is fucking stupid. J3D is going fishing here, nothing more. Cyberbob 05:03, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Its not just petty its clearly bad faith as there is no way that you didn't know what the accepted standards for this page are (and pretty much always have been) For fuck sake you even played a major part in the discussion that led to the toning down of the old notice. Knowing what you obviously do you were clearly just being an ass to amuse yourself and a warning that you are going to report as vandalism something that you know is not vandalism is anything but an innocent mistake. --Honestmistake 18:56, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Wrong, I've been moving comments for weeks and nobody's said anything about it until now. As for the conversation, we aren't all fucking elephants. How am I supposed to remember every little detail in the history of every part of the wiki on top of the stuff I need to do IRL? Cyberbob 23:21, 7 April 2009 (BST)

2 long established users pointed out in plain english why you were wrong to remove their comments, both of us were polite in doing so and you persisted in ignoring our request that you stop moving the comment. You actually moved my comment something like 10 times over a period of over 2 hours.... perhaps one of those occasions might have been enough to jog your memory?--Honestmistake 00:41, 8 April 2009 (BST)

Oh and I don't have enough contact with Midianian to comment on whether or not there was a pre-existing animosity there. There might be some on his side, I don't know. Cyberbob 05:03, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Based upon the fact that Bob has been moving just about every inane comment (And sometimes by accident a sysop ruling :P) from here for such a long frickin' time, I'd normally rule not vandalism. But being that it's Honest on the name of one of his reports makes me want to reconsider...

Not vandalism anyway, on the fact that Cyberbob is just being a little over-zealous on his following of guidelines (Which aren't rules in this case and aren't required to be adhered to).

Now, a bit of replying to some of these comments.

1. Honest, he was not wrong to remove any non-sysops/accused/accuser comments. He was entirely within the rules and actually helping out more than harming in the long run. He's been doing this for awhile as I said. I don't want him to stop doing it altogether either, because some times it's really helpful.
2. Next time I see a case of remove-replace between you two (Bob and Honest)it's a warning for both of you. That was ridiculous, one of you should have just let it go.
3. From now on I feel there should be no vandal reports made on this topic unless it's outright spammy or noncontributing. If you're unsure about a comment, then leave it. It's not too big of a deal anyway.

Okay?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:27, 8 April 2009 (BST)

If an edit war like this one looks like it's about to kick off I'll go to Arbies instead of continuing it. Having one side "just drop it" will never work as neither side will want to be the person to do so. Cyberbob 10:11, 8 April 2009 (BST)

I should have just said arbies huh? Pretty much what I was meaning, but yeah. Also, thanks. The comment moving is generally helpful, but when you are scrolling through the talk for information and you see the same rather large comment there a dozen times or something like that, it gets a bit hard to find things in between. :/ --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 14:21, 8 April 2009 (BST)

Originally I was deleting most of them (for the exact reason you mention) but DDR pointed out to me that Honest might decide to take it upon himself to start a case up against me over their deletion rather than movement. Which considering Honest's "character" (a term I use very loosely) was extremely plausible. Cyberbob 14:33, 8 April 2009 (BST)

Bollocks, you 'moved' them all because you thought it would be more amusing.... you even stated that very fact on my talk page so don't try to play the martyr. Moving a lot of the SPAM that gets put on here is a very worthwhile and useful job but you were moving valid points for the hell of it rather than taking the effort to evaluate what was said. --Honestmistake 23:12, 8 April 2009 (BST)

The amusement was a side effect you inept cunt. Maybe if you'd "taken the time to evaluate what was said" you would have known that. Now. I suggest that if you want this conversation to continue you either further it on this page's talk page or mine as it is getting to the stage where you are abusing your involvement in the case in order to shit all over it. Cyberbob 02:28, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Not vandalism Clear out this somnabiatch. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 23:05, 8 April 2009 (BST)

User:Honestmistake

Honestmistake (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Needed

As Midianian. Again requesting a soft warning. Cyberbob 13:51, 6 April 2009 (BST)

and as I keep posting below:

"If you are not a System Operator, the user who made the vandal report, the user being reported, or directly involved in the case, the administration asks that you use the talk page for further discussion. Free-for-all commenting can lead to a less respectful environment." I have bolded the important bit for you Bob... there has NEVER been a rule saying that you must not post here only that it is preferred that you don't. --Honestmistake 13:53, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - There is no policy making that box law and, similar to below, I personally have found Honest's comments to be relevant to the cases being discussed. -- Cheese 20:31, 6 April 2009 (BST)

thank you cheese but could i ask you (or someone else)to restore my comments? I no longer feel like disputing with Bob as it does nothing but feed his ego while , frankly, making me look a bit stupid for even trying!--Honestmistake 00:46, 7 April 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism, as Cheese.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:18, 7 April 2009 (BST)

User:Midianian

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Needed

Midianian (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Constantly posting comments on the main A/VB page despite not being in any of the three groups described in the box as being allowed to. He hasn't done it enough to warrant a case normally but in this case he has rather explicitly acknowledged that he is going against the box's message. Requesting a soft warning. Cyberbob 11:59, 6 April 2009 (BST)

First, I wasn't "constantly posting comments", merely reverting your removal of one of mine. Second, as I've explained to Bob, the comment is pretty short, relevant to the case and a direct reply to a comment on this page. Third, nowhere did I say I'm going against the box's message, I even said to Bob that the purpose of the notice is not a blanket banisment of all not directly related commentary (the notice was even changed to reflect this, I'll dig up the discussion about it in a bit). --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 12:10, 6 April 2009 (BST)

cool story bro Cyberbob 12:16, 6 April 2009 (BST)

The edit, made by Karek (with related discussion here), has been eaten by the history purge, but you can see the original text of the box on this policy (compare with current text). The text was specifically changed from "strongly asks" to just "asks". I considered the request to post it on the talk page, but decided it was relevant enough to put on the main page. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 13:59, 6 April 2009 (BST)

that was over a year ago brah. get with the times Cyberbob 14:01, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism - There is no policy making that box law and I personally have found Mid's comments to be relevant to the cases being discussed. Any ruling of vandalism resulting from spamming admin pages is exactly for that. Contributing usefully to a discussion is not vandalism to my knowledge. -- Cheese 20:31, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism ^ --Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:17, 7 April 2009 (BST)

User:Ricci Bobby

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None needed

Ricci Bobby (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

A really odd case. Appears to be an alt of User:Alex1guy, judging by these changes, filling out the original's userpage, signing as (possible) original user, and again, but then does dumb stuff like this and this as if he is a total noob. Maybe someone should go on a IP check and see whats going on here? I don't know if this guy knows how confusing it is for us to sign under his alt. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:09, 6 April 2009 (BST)

And THIS. Like what is this guy thinking? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:11, 6 April 2009 (BST)

All IP's are falling into a very similar range, so it's probably fair to assume that Ricci Bobby is an alt of Alex1guy. I'll run them through a geolocater and see if that provides any hints. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:16, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Same ISP, same location. Looks like it's an alt. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:18, 6 April 2009 (BST)

I would also like to add, for the possibility of a future case, that the user is modifying others' danger reports one month after he was user-warned for it. I'm explaining it all to the user now. D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 08:29, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Thanks. Here's the prior vandalism case. It was over page blanking and removing comments. Linkthewindow  Talk  08:39, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Not vandalism - for the record -- boxy ^{talk • teh rulz} 05:11 9 April 2009 (BST)

User:Rosslessness

Rosslessness (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not vandalism
Action taken	1 week ban (requested)

Requesting a 1 week Self ban. I have work I should be doing. I hope you can cope. --Rosslessness^{Want a Location Image?} 11:17, 5 April 2009 (BST)

Done. Linkthewindow  Talk  11:37, 5 April 2009 (BST)

User:Famke

Famke (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Perma

Possible spambot. Only contribution is creating this: Dig Site, The which is about Runescape. External links to some 3rd party site related to it too. --  RoosterDragon  15:41, 4 April 2009 (BST)

Permabanned and page deleted. =) -- Cheese 18:08, 4 April 2009 (BST)

And another spambit bites the dust!--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 18:44, 4 April 2009 (BST)

I'm so tempted to post up the entire lyrics of Another One Bites the Dust now. =p And yes, those spambits are a real menace. -- Cheese 18:58, 4 April 2009 (BST)

I think we should permanently rename spambots spambits in honor of that mess up of yours. :)--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 19:00, 4 April 2009 (BST)

To A/PD!! =D -- Cheese 19:10, 4 April 2009 (BST)

User:Allies_against_DK13

Allies_against_DK13 (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Sockpuppet
Action taken	Main Warned

Vandalized DK13's recruitment ad, alternate account of User:The shoemaker.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 05:35, 4 April 2009 (BST)

link and link. It's worth noting that SA has temporarily blocked Shoemaker until another sysop comes and rules. Anyone got any more links to add? D^ANCED^ANCER^EVOLUTION (TALK | CONTRIBS) 07:45, 4 April 2009 (BST)

Main (The shoemaker) warned. I'll leave the alt non-banned for now, as I guess this edit could be seen as non-vandalism. Linkthewindow  Talk  10:03, 4 April 2009 (BST)

Actually, being that it consisted of the same stuff that he was saying while vandalizing, and according to this case where he left the same spammy warning on his userpage and it was deleted as a vandal page then Allies against DK13's edit to his talk page could be considered a continuation of his vandalism, thus negating the whole non-vandalism call. But I'm fine with the ruling. :) . Also, thanks for taking care of this guys. I was too tired.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 13:44, 4 April 2009 (BST)

Yeah. I'll see if he keeps vandalizing once he sees the warning. He hasn't even made three edits yet, but it's still a vandal alt, I guess. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:49, 4 April 2009 (BST)

And he appears to have taken it in. Let's hope he stops naw. Linkthewindow  Talk  13:19, 5 April 2009 (BST)

User:ANGUSMCSUCKSUCK

ANGUSMCSUCKSUCK (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Vandalism
Action taken	Warning

Warned for editing a group page and fucking about with an image upload which I've deleted and reuploaded because it went screwy on the revert. I did originally permaban him but I've decided to just issue a warning instead. -- Cheese 19:40, 3 April 2009 (BST)

User:J3D

J3D (talk | contribs | logs | block | IP Check | vndl data | discuss)

Verdict	Not Vandalism
Action taken	None Required

For making 2 petty cases against me on A/M that involved me acting within my rights (deleting a scheduled deletion and banning MYSELF). Clearly this is a personal vendetta. This is harassment and violates this guideline from A/M Cases made to further personal disputes should never be made here, harassment of any user through administration pages may result in vandal escalations. Despite their unique status this basic protection does still apply to Sysops. --– Nubis ^NWO 11:40, 1 April 2009 (BST)

irony.--xoxo 04:11, 3 April 2009 (BST)

Is there a half-vandalism half-not-vandalism option?

Alright, here's the deal. I personally think that what you did with the image was the right thing to do and well within your rights and is actually part of your job. Jed probably shouldn't have brought the image case up as it was. But I don't agree with a sysop going and punishing themselves over a misconduct case. An actual decision should have happened. Now I know there was a bunch of talking and blathering going on, but all the same a punishment needs to be met out and decided by the rest of the team, not by the one under the scope.

That said, any other sysop plan to say anything on this case? I don't want to rule until I hear other view points.--Suicidal Angel, Help needed? 18:59, 4 April 2009 (BST)

Seriously though, can we get some input here? It's been long enough for at least one other 'op to say anything about this case, and I know you buggers have seen it!--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 18:17, 5 April 2009 (BST)

Are you saying that I am not allowed to ban myself under any circumstances? Are you saying that I somehow have more authority over everyone else on A/M and that when I decide a course of action it is the final decision? You can't have it both ways. Either I have some kind of ungranted authority and can decide (but not vote on) my own Misconduct cases or whatever the hell I do has nothing to do with the actual case. You can't bitch at me for finally getting off my ass and making a fucking decision. There were only 2 questions in that case: Who is responsible for de-escalations and what is the penalty for screwing up a ban time? And what was stopping anyone from saying, "Nice ban, now here's your punishment." ?

Why did we add the clause about harassment if we aren't going to use it to protect sysops? Why would it even ever be considered misconduct to ban myself? Seriously. And why would instantly going to Misconduct over a scheduled deletion ever be correct? Don't make policies that you are going to get in trouble for upholding. --– Nubis ^NWO 08:10, 6 April 2009 (BST)

"And why would instantly going to Misconduct over a scheduled deletion ever be correct?" When the deleted page/image doesn't fit the description of the scheduled deletion. If you deleted, say, this image claiming it was porn, naturally you'd be brought to misconduct as soon as someone noticed it. J3D simply thought the image wasn't porn and acted accordingly. --Midianian^{¦T¦DS¦SP¦} 09:46, 6 April 2009 (BST)

I'm saying you shouldn't try to preemptively try and decide your own punishment. It doesn't matter if it's override-able, you still shouldn't try and say "Hey, I'm just gonna punish my self like this, and because I'm the only one that's decided on what my punishment should be it's should probably be right. But go ahead and rule otherwise if you feel you should, but my punishment is probably the best course of action!"

'Cause you know, that's exactly what you did'. Sure, no one overrode it, but the fact of the matter is is that you shouldn't have done it from the start.

No one said you shouldn't be allowed to ban yourself, but when you're trying to decide on your own punishment for your own case, then it's a problem. There's plenty of us to decide that for you, learn some fucking patience because the case wasn't even there for 3 days. But please do go on how we're all persecuting you because one user thought you fucked up. 'Cause it's not possible to think a sysops messed up without it being harassment amirite?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:14, 7 April 2009 (BST)

My problem is that I believe that the cases border (if not cross the line) on Harassment. However I also abhor the idea of dong anything that might prevent regular users from bringing legitimate cases against sysops. The fact the cases themselves were brought is understandable (although also just as obviously not misconduct imho.) Where J3d crosses the line is the language in presenting the case regarding the image edit. No we don't have a civility policy, but the statement "Can the lady reupload so we can finally get the buttons taken off the control freak?"indicates a specific intent when combined with the statements made in this case and the other indicate a bias against, and in this situation harassment of, Nubis. ergo Vandalism. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 19:56, 5 April 2009 (BST)

Do you even understand what you're saying? You're trying to say that because he thinks Nubis should be in trouble for something it's automatically harassment? So, the next time you or I or any other op fucks up, and someone brings a case against us saying "Can someone please demote them for this serious fuck up", I can call it harassment and bring them down with me? Oh, of course as long as it's at least two cases amirite?

You said it yourself, we don't have a civility policy, the statement wasn't over the line. Don't try to use that call this vandalism. Also, of course he's going to have a specific intent of bringing a misconduct case. The fixing of a perceived mistake on a syops along with a punishment, if needed.

If Jed's getting a punishment for asking for a sysops to be demoted in the case, then how come no one else has ever gotten one for asking for a specific punishment?

Jeez Conn, if you're going to try and get a user that you don't like punished, could you use a thicker veil?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 22:12, 5 April 2009 (BST)

You are the one that asked for input. 1st I don't have anything against J3d, and I think some of the things that has been done in effigy are juvenile at best, however... By Specific intent I mean not calling out a mistake by a sysop but rather calling out a specific sysop to be demoted and not entirely on the merits of this case alone but rather previous incidents as well which are clearly defined within the verbage of J3ds complaint. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 08:02, 6 April 2009 (BST)

Oh.. and by the way... Demote him because of this serious fuck up is a whole lot different than demote him because HE is a serious fuck up. Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 08:04, 6 April 2009 (BST)

The end of your first comment doesn't make much sense. If you care to elaborate or retry to explain that it's be cool. Your second part on the other hand, yes there is a difference. But right here that does not matter. Whether Nubis is a bad sysops or not, the fact that Jed asked for his demotion in his request does not mean it's harassment. It's a punishment he thought fitting seeing some of said sysops past behavior.

Please try to find another way to punish a user for trying to do what he thought was right. Whether I agree with what said user was thinking or not, he did what he thought was right and I respect his rights given to him as a member of this wiki and I will not infringe upon them.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:14, 7 April 2009 (BST)

said sysops past behavior Exactly what makes it harassment. Each Misconduct case must be tried on its own merits with its own punishments as THAT CASE deserves. In the process of calling for Nubis' demotion he both uses language that outside this little domain would be considered blatant harassment (but has to be discussed here because of the lack of "policy") and calls for a punishment that far exceeds the boundaries of what said case would have resulted in. By the way...I'm getting a little tired of folks saying they want such and such out of misconduct cases. If it is judged to be misconduct its our job to determine what punishment if any. By the way the case stands at a 1-1 tie...Could we get a third voice in here so we can close this out one way or another. Too little sleep...Too Much caffeine...Post goes on forever...Conndraka^{mod TAZM CFT} 23:01, 8 April 2009 (BST)

lolwut? Please tell me where in any official documentation that it says that a misconduct case is to be judged on it's own merits? I see nothing in any policy or guideline saying that cases aren't not to be judged along with past behavior. I mean, isn't that kind of how Jed was demoted? The case was brought for one thing, but he was demoted because of that along with his past behavior? I fail to see how that can happen yet you say that each case should be judged on it's own merits. Also, whether you're tired of people requesting a form of punishment, it's not against the rules.

And my last bit for now, Conn has a bit of a point. This case has been up for a while now, and him and I are the only ones who have ruled. Can we get a few more opinions on this one? More than one other preferably?--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 02:53, 9 April 2009 (BST)

Not Vandalism on the grounds that there is no clear pattern of harassment or abuse in the data provided by the 'op who feels harassed, and there is no way to really call them petty when it's a difference of opinion in one case; which is why we review these cases. And in the other case, it's simply something accused user thought was wrong. He's apparently not the only one that thinks handling your own punishment in a misconduct case is wrong, and I'm sure others feel the same.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 01:14, 7 April 2009 (BST)

How many do you want for a pattern? --– Nubis ^NWO 03:43, 8 April 2009 (BST)

I don't want a number, I want substantial evidence of the supposed abuse. So he made two cases against you? Iscariot has made 3. Midianian has made 3. Hell, unless I missed something in the VB archives, he hasn't even made a vandal report against you. Just those two misconduct cases. If you're going to use numbers as a clear and substantial pattern of abuse, then please remember to file the reports against those who have made more cases than what you're using as a base.

Would you like to go back to the "The cases themselves are the harassment" argument? I can repeat why the cases wouldn't be harassment if you really need me to.--Mr. Angel, Help needed? 15:05, 8 April 2009 (BST)

To give this some much needed closure, Not Vandalism. -- Cheese 18:25, 13 April 2009 (BST)

yay!--xoxo 03:52, 14 April 2009 (BST)

---

e Vandal Banning Archive

2006 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2007 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2008 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2009 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2010 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2011 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec 2012 Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Q3 Q4 2013 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Years 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020